Template talk:Flagicon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Flagicon has been protected indefinitely. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to request an edit.

Main article: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Flag_Template

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Flagicon page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

[edit] Border?

Is there an easy way to add a border around the image that gets displayed? Flags that have large areas of white along their edges (such as Poland or Japan ) don't look quite as good without a border; the individual flag pages recommend wrapping the image tag in {{border}}. However, using {{border}} around the {{flagicon}} call doesn't quite work the way I would expect it to (as in the following examples):

Using {{flagicon|Japan}}

in a regular text paragraph.

in a bulleted list paragraph.

in a numbered list paragraph.

Using {{border|{{flagicon|Japan}}}}

uses both templates in a regular text paragraph.

uses both templates in a bulleted list paragraph.

uses both templates in a numbered list paragraph.

As you can see, using {{border}} adds an extra line break before the text. Thoughts or ideas? AdThanksVance. Slambo (Speak) 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Some flags with white areas include a border in the image. This may be an issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template or Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, although I check their Talk pages as I've seen this discussed someplace. (SEWilco 19:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC))

Another problem with {{border}}, found during editing one game-related article. See the example stripped template on the right:

FlatOut 2
Developer(s)
Release date(s)	June 29, 2006 June 30, 2006 August 1, 2006
Genre(s)
Mode(s)
Platform(s)

"Released part" contains just {{border|{{flagicon|RUS}}}}[[June 29]] [[2006]]<br />[[Image:European flag.svg|22px|Europe]] [[June 30]], [[2006]]<br />{{flagicon|USA}} [[August 1]] [[2006]], but it renders some vertical-prolonged border! Honeyman 16:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USSR and PRC

the symbols on the flags (which are there only distinguishing feature) especially the USSR one are reduced to tiny splodges I wonder if we should exageragerate them a bit so they are actually recogniseable. Plugwash 17:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not a good ideia. The flags should be presented as they are. Afonso Silva 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think if a separate icon flag was created this might be acceptable. Rich Farmbrough 14:31 19 June 2006 (GMT).

Oh yes i wouldn't suggest changing full sized display of flags just the icons, this would be easy enough to implement in the template using #if Plugwash 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European Union?

{{flagicon|EUR}} seem to generate only , while {{EUR}}</nowiki> generally works ( European Union). Any fix?

There is [[Image:European flag.svg|22px|Europe]] () though for it, but it goes out of the template. Honeyman 16:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand not working

For some reason using both NZL and New Zealand as arguments isn't working and is just displaying the text "New Zealand". Anyone more familiar with how this template is built have any clue why and how to fix it? -Drdisque 06:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This problem is now occuring with

, and

. -Drdisque 21:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm seeing icons. Maybe the image servers were slow at that time? Try reloading the page. (SEWilco 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Turks & Caicos

- seems busted from where I'm sitting

[edit] World

Seeing as how there are more and more worldwide realeses, via online download and such, I created a World alias for the flagicon template, using the flag to the right, per Template:Infobox CVG standards. Just type in "World" and there ya go. JQF 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kind of hard to recognize that tiny blue ovoid with dust in the corners. Too many pale colors. (SEWilco 02:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC))

Well it's the one used for the CVG Infobox, so that's why I used it. If you know of another one that would be better suited, I'd be happy to hear it. JQF 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to use a clearly recognizable globe. And in most situations no flagicon is needed for an international release. Shinobu 05:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How about the globe image currently used as default in Template:Country data (e.g.

)? I've also seen the UN flag (

) used as a default for international releases, but that is clearly a bad idea. I think we should standardize on something. Use of any icon seems a bit superfluous, but it is advantageous to have something as a place filler when lining up lists where every other entry has a flag icon. Andrwsc 18:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trying to figure out what breaks South Korea

[[Image:Template:Country flag alias South Korea|22x20px|Template:Country alias South Korea]]

Okay, this obviously is a problem with {{country_flag}}, not with this template. Shinobu 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the point?

Why are little flags appropriate for Wikipedia? What are they for? —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

For stubs as far as I can tell. -WarthogDemon 02:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes. There's not always enough room for full country names. Shinobu 05:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then it should be specifically discouraged in other places, because it is simply goofy where not necessary. —Centrx→talk • 08:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should only be used in world or country-related affairs. -- Ladida 05:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The top of this page links to a Wikiproject; discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template is better than tucked in a single template's Talk page. The reason this template was created is as a standardized replacement for assorted flag templates, as pointed out in Village pump (news). "What links here" shows several kinds of usage. (SEWilco 01:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

What is the point of all these convoluted templates? They are used inappropriately throughout the wiki. —Centrx→talk • 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing Template:Country to eliminate the flag icon seems a bit premature, don't you think? --*Spark* 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been a month, and this issue has been brought up in numerous forums. No one seems to have provided any reason why a flag should appear beside every mention of a country in an infobox or table or, more importantly, why it should be propagated uniformly by template. If there is a reason, please explain it. —Centrx→talk • 03:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The passage of time is irrelevant when there is no discussion. What other numerous forums, and which are relevant ones which would have been noticed by users of these templates? There is a link at the top of this page to the relevant WikiProject, why have you not discussed it there? (SEWilco 17:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

I seem to have arrived a bit late.

Anyway, my argument: if people wanted to only use the country name they would have linked it directly, not used a convoluted template. The point of the templates in the first place is to provide "aids to navigation in very long lists of countries: the flag of the individual country one is looking for may 'stand out' to the eye more immediately than the name itself", as WP:FLAGCRUFT, says. Consider, for example, List of countries by length of coastline or European_Short_Course_Swimming_Championships_2006#Medal_Table. I agree that they are overused, but replace the template with a country name individually.

And the point of uniform propagation is the same as why we have class="wikitable" and a common CSS: It looks more professional if things like flags are roughly similar throughout wiki. Sam Vimes | Address me 11:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It might stand out to the eye, but for most people most flags are meaningless. They will recognize a few of the flags and no others; they are going to read the names anyway, and the names are nevertheless listed. Also, I do not see why "eye-catching" is relevant to an encyclopedia. Why don't we put graphic bars of relative lengths on the coastline page? Why don't we put a little filled clock next to all the times on the Olympic page? The flags are useful to save space instead of writing out the full country name (though, because most flags are not clear which country they belong to, the country names should usually be written out anyway). —Centrx→talk • 12:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem icon?

I think this thing is problematic. Kurdistan is not a country. And don't get this the wrong way. Kurdistan (Iraq) does not claim to be a country. I do not see why we should treat it like a country. --Cat out 21:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the availability of {{flagicon}} implies that something is a country, just that it has a flag. Shinobu 06:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Texas isn't a country either, but {{flagicon|Texas}} works. As I see it, this template isn't meant to imply that something is a country; all it means is that there is a claimed political entity, and those who claim its existence also claim that it has a flag, and that this flag looks like this. The template makes no statement about the validity of the claim. Therefore, flagicons for

Transnistria,

Abkhazia, and all those other unrecognized countries aren't problems, and neither is the Kurdistan one. Þicaroon 20:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect design statement

User:Centrx altered the protected page to add a statement that this template was designed for specific types of uses. This is factually incorrect. It was designed for technical reasons to provide standardized icons for replacement of the assortment of defacto icons with various characteristics and naming conflicts. The type of usage was not part of the design. (SEWilco 18:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

I removed the "designed" part. See also the above discussion. —Centrx→talk • 05:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported use restriction

User:Centrx added a protected statement which states how the template is to be used, without such a decision of use restriction having been made. Centrx claims discussion in numerous forums but does not support such claim. (SEWilco 06:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

See above at #What is the point? for the discussion that is on this very talk page and the discussion which is directly referenced in the edit, [1], which was made three weeks after the discussion was initiated, for starters. What are the reasons why this template should be used for other purposes? —Centrx→talk • 07:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The above "discussion" had three replies before Centrx added that policy statement under the shield of protection. There is no usage policy and the statement should be removed from the protected article. (SEWilco 19:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

(edit conflict) The only person I see in agreement with Centrx is Centrx. This change needs to be reverted because there clearly is not a consensus for the change. Note to Centrx: Please stop removing these icons from Wikipedia based on the beliefs of an essay: WP:FLAGCRUFT. It is neither a policy nor guideline and should not be used in such a way. AuburnPilot^talk 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree completely. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Editing_protected_pages. If he wants to make a change he should get consensus here first. There is none. --*Spark* 19:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually look at the section, where three other users did agree, and no one else disagreed before it was added. If it should be removed, there should be reasons given why it should be removed, not just to remove it and then find that it was right to add it in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Two people partially answered a question, and only one user agreed with Centrx. Centrx also observed that there was a lack of commentary for a month. Perhaps because nobody is looking here or nobody had an answer to Centrx's question. (SEWilco 04:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

You are here now, so you can explain the reasons. —Centrx→talk • 04:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't explain the reasons the template is used. Read what I said in the "point" discussion above, particularly the link to the original "Village pump" excerpt. The template was created for standardization reasons, not usage reasons. I don't know the reasons flag icons were being used before the template existed, nor now. I know that now the icons have a more similar appearance. I know that I know only a few ways they are being used (such as sports and military), but I also know they are being used in other ways which I do not know. (SEWilco 04:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

In response to a request on my talk page, I have created a documentation subpage at Template:Flagicon/doc. This appears to be common practice for fully protected templates, allowing discussion on usage to continue while preventing the template itself from being vandalized. - Banyan Tree 19:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the addition of the restriction text in the doc page - It isn't up to us to decide where the template can be used. It is here, it performs a certain task, and that's it. Putting in an arbitrary restriction will do nothing but start edit wars with someone using that text as justification for removal of the template on a page. It's used where it's used, and such usage can be judged on an individual basis, and will be judged on an individual basis with or without a falsely imposed declaration on where usage is proper. --*Spark* 21:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is imposed, but the fact remains that the template has a specific encyclopedic use, which no one appears to have contested. It is misleading to have this is an official-looking template. Also, please fix the multiple layers of transclusion. —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading to state that this template is used in certain ways or only in certain ways. In what way should the flags look not official? (SEWilco 05:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

The template makes it appear that it is standard and encouraged to use the flags in appropriate ways. —Centrx→talk • 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless a policy exists stating these icons can only be used where there is inadequate space to type the country's name, such a restriction would be wrongly placed on this template's page. Policy change requires policy discussion. AuburnPilot^talk 05:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That's what this talk page is for, and it is no more of a policy change than having the flags at all. —Centrx→talk • 06:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons existed before this tool existed. Having a standard usage and intent was the reason this tool was created. The existence of flags is a fact, not a policy. There are places where policies are discussed; as there are Wikiprojects involving regions there may also be discussions about place policies. (SEWilco 03:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

And there are places to discuss the use of a template, such as the template talk page. —Centrx→talk • 04:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Would it be possible to edit this template such that clicking on the image of the flag takes you to the page for that country? LukeSurl 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Images in Wikipedia are automatically linked to the page for the image. (SEWilco 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

If somebody were to use the {{click}} template, the flag would automatically lead to the country's article. It can be done, but as the template's description says "Do not use this template unless absolutely necessary". I wouldn't suggest using it here. AuburnPilot^talk 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

{{click}} uses CSS. I did not propose using CSS because that would make the images behave differently based upon behavior of various browsers. If Wikipedia wants to make images behave differently then the developers will have to make changes. (SEWilco 19:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. --Ligulem 11:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centralised discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the centralised discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. Please add comments over there, not here. Thanks. Carcharoth 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Switched to use new template code from template:flagicon2

I've changed the template to use the new code from template:Flagicon2. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template/January 2007 rework. See also template:country2 for some info about the usage of this template here (is the same as for flagicon2, which is a shorthand for {{country2|flagicon|...}}). I've created all needed data templates before doing the switch ([2], [3]). --Ligulem 12:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Job queue length is at 33,810 now and decreasing. --Ligulem 13:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Job queue length is now at ~700. So this change should be live on articles now (/me ducks and covers :-). --Ligulem 13:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican City

just to note their flagicon is bigger than the others --Jor70 00:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone must have forgotten to specify both the horizontal and vertical px in their template edits. (SEWilco 04:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

Hmm. {{flagicon|Vatican City}} =

expands as: [[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg|22x20px|Flag of Vatican City]] =

. --Ligulem 09:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at last version by SEWilco of the previously used {{country flagicon}} I see

[[Image:{{country flag alias {{{1}}}}}|{{#if:{{{size|}}}|{{{size}}}|22x20px}}|{{country alias {{{1}}}}}]]

as template code, which under the old system ([4]) would have been expanded as

[[Image:{{country flag alias Vatican City}}|22x20px|{{country alias Vatican City}}]]

which further expanded to

[[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg|22x20px|Vatican City]]

and which finally is the same with regards to image size as what we have at the moment. The only difference is that I added "Flag of" to the alt attribute of the image. --Ligulem 10:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note: Switzerland also has a quadratic flag and that has the same height now. Compare:

--Ligulem 10:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some experimenting with sizes:

[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|22x20px|Flag of Switzerland]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|15x20px|Flag of Switzerland]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|14x20px|Flag of Switzerland]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg|22x20px|Flag of Vatican City]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg.svg|15x20px|Flag of Vatican City]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg.svg|14x20px|Flag of Vatican City]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|15x20px|Flag of Italy]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =

~~Looks like changing "22x20px" to "15x20px" would produce a smaller image with the same height as the flags for Italy or France.~~ --Ligulem 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for curiosity:

[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|15px|Flag of Switzerland]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|15px|Flag of Italy]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =

--Ligulem 11:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Some links: m:Help:Images and other uploaded files, Wikipedia:Extended image syntax. --Ligulem 14:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Extended image syntax: "100x200px": Scales the image to be no wider than 100 pixels and no higher than 200 pixels. Image will keep its original aspect ratio. ([5]). --Ligulem 14:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at these examples:

[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|15x20px]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|20x15px]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|15x20px]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|20x15px]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Italy.svg|22x15px]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =
[[Image:Flag of Switzerland.svg|22x15px]] {{flagicon|Italy}} =

and at the quote from Wikipedia:Extended image syntax above I would say "22x15px" would be the correct value, if people want to have the quadratic flags the same height as the flags like France or Italy. The only problem I see with this is, that quadratic flags would look visually smaller than they do now. However, I don't care myself. What do you want to have? --Ligulem 14:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Using 22x15px, {{flagicon|Vatican City}} would then look like this:

{{flagicon|Italy}} [[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg|22x15px|Flag of Vatican City]] {{flagicon|France}} =

--Ligulem 14:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

forgive me please, but I still do not understand: {{flagicon|France}} {{flagicon|Italy}} {{flagicon|Vatican City}} result in . Are you saying I must use [[Image:Flag of the Vatican City.svg|22x15px|Flag of Vatican City]] instead of the template for Vatican City ? Jor70 15:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not :-). I was asking what people want to have on the template. To show what the changes would look like, I used plain wiki syntax. Shall I change the template to make the quadratic flags use the same height as the flags for France or Italy? In other words, shall I change the template such that when calling {{flagicon|Italy}} {{flagicon|Vatican City}} {{flagicon|France}} you would get

? --Ligulem 15:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

aahh, hehe sorry, yes, IMHO vatican city should be the same height of the others, no matter if is longer or shorter. Jor70 17:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. {{flagicon|France}} {{flagicon|Italy}} {{flagicon|Vatican City}} {{flagicon|Switzerland}} =

--Ligulem 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

....but note that for example Australia: {{flagicon|Australia}} {{flagicon|Italy}} =

is lower. --Ligulem 18:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just in case: No change compared to previous default size:

{{flagicon|Australia}} {{flagicon|Australia|size=22x20px}} {{flagicon|Italy}} =

--Ligulem 18:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I fear we will get some more problems:

{{flagicon|Australia}} {{flagicon|Australia|size=30x15px}} {{flagicon|Italy}} =

Seems like one default size for all flags is not sufficient if all flags shall have the same default height??? Oh dear... --Ligulem 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahem: {{flagicon|Australia|size=30x15px}} {{flagicon|Switzerland|size=30x15px}} {{flagicon|Italy|size=30x15px}} {{flagicon|Vatican City|size=30x15px}} =

--Ligulem 18:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Uhh. Question is, what would people say to layouts like this one (example article):

Italy
Australia
Switzerland

? --Ligulem 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Awesome for vatican city!, but I just notice England, New Zealand, Japan, looks smaller too, hope not problem with that but perhaps you could just use a conditional for Vatican City ? Jor70 18:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, there are so many flag variations that a "one size fits all" approach is impossible, IMO. Obviously, the size= override can be used to make adjustments as need be, but I think that the previous default of 22x20px is the best choice. There are a great number of instances where flagicons are used with a list, and the rendering looks significantly better when the flags all have the same width, so that the text lines up neatly. Since the majority of flags are wider than tall, I propose reverting back to the previous setting and if specific pages with Vatican City, Switzerland, etc. flags require some "tweaking", then size= can be used on those pages. The default needs to cater to the most common denominator. Andrwsc 22:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 22x15px isn't that bad. Could you be more specific why you find the old 22x20px better than 22x15px? Can you point at some articles as examples which have suffered from the change to 22x15px? I don't mean to go to 30x15px but 22x15px could be a compromise. As I demonstrated above here, Australia, as a very long-flag example (two Switzerland flags would fit in that :-) hasn't changed at all by going to 22x15px. --Ligulem 22:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think I got what Andrwsc means: compare these two short lists:

size=22x20px
Italy
Australia
Switzerland

size=22x15px
Italy
Australia
Switzerland

The text lines up significantly worser with 22x15px than with 22x20px. Jor70, could you tell us a specific article where you are using the Vatican City flag and which looks bad in your opinion with the 22x20px size? --Ligulem 23:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I first notice it on my user page! :-) But I wasnt aware of the size parameter and I just wanted to let you know of this issue. Of course is not a problem for me to use the template parameter. Jor70 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the 22x20px works better. There are many tables with text which is easier to read if the text is aligned. There may be some line spacing issues, depending upon the size font which a user's browser is using, but that should be less significant than the horizontal alignment issue. (SEWilco 03:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC))

I agree and I believe we have consensus for the good old default of 22x20px. I've reverted the templates: [6], [7]. --Ligulem 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

I've been seeing the icons pop up in more and more places where it looks a bit...odd. Take a look at Steve Grogan; is that what this icon template was intended for? Tarc 23:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A controversial question. I can't really comment on usage, but see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry? for some recent voices. This has to be decided by editors on articles: either they use the template or not. Editors on sports related articles use these flags a lot. For my personal taste: I wouldn't be disappointed if the US flag on Steve Grogan would be removed. But the sports editors might not be happy with the removal of their flags. My role on this template here: I have just spent some time on the implementation side of the flag templates recently (I worked on a technical redesign of the original system by SEWilco). See also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Flag_Template for the technicalities. --Ligulem 00:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong not working

All pages using the "flagicon-Hong Kong" template are displaying the text "Flag of Hong Kong" instead of an image. Tony Myers 17:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you point out an example? {{flagicon|Hong Kong}} is working fine (rendering

), and there have been no changes to Template:Country data Hong Kong. Andrwsc 18:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a problem today where a bot added interwiki links outside the "noinclude" section of some of the flag templates, so maybe you saw a problem with that (e.g. {{HKG}}. Are you sure it was a problem with {{flagicon}} and not with that? Andrwsc 19:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USA not working

All pages using the {{flagicon|USA}} and {{flagicon|United States}} are displaying "Flag of United States" instead of the image. I'm not sure how to fix it!! AWN2 23:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it now. There have been no changes today to any of {{flagicon}}, {{Country flagicon2}} or {{Country data United States}}, and those are the only three templates that are needed to render {{flagicon|United States}}. I have no explanation! Andrwsc 00:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag of Brazil and Australia STILL not working

I see up in a bit that it's happened before (and maybe just hasn't gotten fixed), does anyone know what the problem could be? It just shows the text "flag of (whatever country)" instead of the picture. But, it only does it for certain ones. Bsroiaadn 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the problem is not with these templates. My guess is that the 22 pixel versions of all the SVG images not no longer in the cache, and are not being rendered. Andrwsc 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Hardy

What do we do for someone who was born under 44 stars and died under 48? Shouldn't we be putting the flags from the proper eras next to these people's names and does this template allow for a way to do that? gren グレン 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for that kind of discussion. In fact, there is some resistance to using flag icons altogether for that kind of situation (see Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags). This talk page usually deals with technical issues around the templates that render the flag icons, not the policy of when and where they are appropriate. But to partially answer your question, you can get a 44 star US flag with {{flagicon|United States|1891}} and a 48 star flag with {{flagicon|United States|1912}}. Andrwsc 14:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/l/a/Template_talk%7EFlagicon_1e52.html"